Meh. I can't hate on him for doing this. It is actually something I wish Obama had done more of. Part of being president and setting your agenda is selling it to the people. It's all part of the bully pulpit, and when done right, like the way Teddy Roosevelt did it, it can give a lot of power to your policy positions.

To me, that was Obama's one huge failing. He allowed others to frame the debate and spoke as a scholar on the issues rather than as an orator selling his vision.

I can't stand most of Trump's policy positions, but I have to respect his willingness to fight for them.

Meh. I can't hate on him for doing this. It is actually something I wish Obama had done more of. Part of being president and setting your agenda is selling it to the people. It's all part of the bully pulpit, and when done right, like the way Teddy Roosevelt did it, it can give a lot of power to your policy positions.

To me, that was Obama's one huge failing. He allowed others to frame the debate and spoke as a scholar on the issues rather than as an orator selling his vision.

I can't stand most of Trump's policy positions, but I have to respect his willingness to fight for them.

It's more an indication of his psychological problems than anything else.

It is actually something I wish Obama had done more of. Part of being president and setting your agenda is selling it to the people. It's all part of the bully pulpit, and when done right, like the way Teddy Roosevelt did it, it can give a lot of power to your policy positions.

I might agree with that. IFFF the man actually set REAL Agenda With Substance. His Current Policy attempts are not the product of hard-thought, well-advised intellectual input. His 'policy positions' are the leftover soundbites from a campaign cloaked in the red-meat rhetoric designed to draw the Pavlovian responses.

"Immigration Reform"? So he tried and failed to limit immigration from Islamist states--a "policy" attempt to back his "I'll protect you from all the Muslim terrorists": poorly planned and executed. His health care reform: "EVERYBODY will be covered, and it will cost less!"....not happening. If he had any Big Ground-Breaking Wins in the policy department to celebrate with his sycophants, more power to him. What one sees, however, is more of a "God, I really need you to show me more love, this is so much harder than I dreamed!"

Yeah, if he had something to really crow about, he wouldn't have to limit himself to Ypsilanti or Nashville.

Oh I agree completely about his actual positions. It's just the concept of holding rallies to push your agenda that I don't take umbrage with. Just as I don't have an issue with people holdibg counter rallies to drum up opposition to those policies.

He's rallying in favor of the GOP health plan, which is a long way from the policy he espoused in the campaign.

Which gets to the heart of the matter. He never really had any well defined positions. He had some nebulous ideas of something "terrific" but no idea on how to get there. The only way to achieve the things that he campaigned on, are to double down on the parts of Obamacare that the GOP base can't stand. So he abandons those principles and tries to sell a bill of rotten goods to his supporters hoping that their attachment to him is greater than their health care demands.

He's rallying in favor of the GOP health plan, which is a long way from the policy he espoused in the campaign.

Which gets to the heart of the matter. He never really had any well defined positions. He had some nebulous ideas of something "terrific" but no idea on how to get there. The only way to achieve the things that he campaigned on, are to double down on the parts of Obamacare that the GOP base can't stand. So he abandons those principles and tries to sell a bill of rotten goods to his supporters hoping that their attachment to him is greater than their health care commands.

Health care was one of his best defined positions. He campaigned in favor of universal coverage all through the campaign.

_________________Why can't we sit in the park like other boys and girls?
Why do we have to walk in the subway tunnel?

He's rallying in favor of the GOP health plan, which is a long way from the policy he espoused in the campaign.

Which gets to the heart of the matter. He never really had any well defined positions. He had some nebulous ideas of something "terrific" but no idea on how to get there. The only way to achieve the things that he campaigned on, are to double down on the parts of Obamacare that the GOP base can't stand. So he abandons those principles and tries to sell a bill of rotten goods to his supporters hoping that their attachment to him is greater than their health care commands.

Health care was one of his best defined positions. He campaigned in favor of universal coverage all through the campaign.

"Universal Coverage" is a principle. The problem is how to get there. He never offered a plan up on how to achieve that principle, just that Obamacare was crap and he would come up with something "terrific". He offered no defined policy positions on the issue. Once he had to come up with a policy he ran into the obvious problems that everyone with a sense of logic saw coming. The things that allow affordable, quality, universal coverage are things that the GOP base refuses out of hand. Any policy he put forward would alienate his base, and his other positions make it essential that he keeps his base if he wants any chance at all to maintain power.

Any policy he put forward would alienate his base, and his other positions make it essential that he keeps his base if he wants any chance at all to maintain power.

I don't think that's true. Rank & file Republicans like the idea of universal coverage as much as anyone. That's why he was campaigning on it in the first place.

They like the idea. But they hate the "individual mandate" which is absolutely necessary to make a free market system work, hate government spending which is necessary to allow the poor to have quality coverage, and don't even get us started on a "socialist" policy like single payer.

How do you achieve univeral coverage without doubling down on things that the GOP has spent the last 7 years convincing its base to hate? Everyone loves the principle, it's the things required of us to achieve that principle that is the problem.

Many of the rank & file Republican voters have no problem with government programs as long as they're able to benefit from them. They don't like welfare and food stamps and similar programs because it's only available to some of the people, the one's they see as lazy. They love medicare and social security, which is how you get to them carrying signs saying "keep the government out of my medicare" and the like. That seems silly on its face, but what they're really saying is "don't politicize my health". If universal health care was put up for referendum it would pass overwhelmingly with majorities of both larger parties.

_________________Why can't we sit in the park like other boys and girls?
Why do we have to walk in the subway tunnel?

Yes, I think they would pass a "universal coverage" referendum as long as it were worded like that. But would they pass a "single payer" one? It would be labled as "socialism" by the opposition and when they came to vote, would they vote in their own interest or would they allow the GOP leadership to convince them that the next step would be full on Marxism?

Would they vote to require everyone to buy insurance? Remember that is the least favored position in the ACA with the majority opposed to it.

Would they vote to increase taxes to the point where risk corridors, medicaid, and even higher government subsidies are fully funded? Wven after the GOP leadership spouts off about how those taxes will cruah our economy and leave small businesses devastated?

I just don't see it. If this were the case they would already be voting differently. They love the concept, but the realities of what they would have to sacrifice so that others can gain more just isn't going to move the needle.

If Trump were moderate in his other positions so that he could draw in independents and perhaps even moderate democrats he could probably pull enough moderate Republicans to maintain power. But with his other positions he really needs to pander to his hardcore Republican base.

It's not a matter of principle. It's just a practical necessity if you're going to make the health insurance system actuarially sound at rates most people can afford.

It's just math. You need to make the pool as large as possible, and you need to compel people to participate at a period of their life when their utilization is low.

You can take care of the poor through other means if you choose. Providing universal healthcare and near-universal participation in the health insurance pool are not synonymous, nor is the latter the only, or necessarily even the best, way to provide the former.

He's rallying in favor of the GOP health plan, which is a long way from the policy he espoused in the campaign.

Which gets to the heart of the matter. He never really had any well defined positions. He had some nebulous ideas of something "terrific" but no idea on how to get there. The only way to achieve the things that he campaigned on, are to double down on the parts of Obamacare that the GOP base can't stand. So he abandons those principles and tries to sell a bill of rotten goods to his supporters hoping that their attachment to him is greater than their health care commands.

Health care was one of his best defined positions. He campaigned in favor of universal coverage all through the campaign.

I've read so many comments by you about this that I'm beginning to think you actually believed him.

If universal health care was put up for referendum it would pass overwhelmingly with majorities of both larger parties.

justintyme wrote:

Yes, I think they would pass a "universal coverage" referendum as long as it were worded like that. But would they pass a "single payer" one? It would be labled as "socialism" by the opposition and when they came to vote, would they vote in their own interest or would they allow the GOP leadership to convince them that the next step would be full on Marxism?

If universal health care was put up for referendum it would pass overwhelmingly with majorities of both larger parties.

justintyme wrote:

Yes, I think they would pass a "universal coverage" referendum as long as it were worded like that. But would they pass a "single payer" one? It would be labled as "socialism" by the opposition and when they came to vote, would they vote in their own interest or would they allow the GOP leadership to convince them that the next step would be full on Marxism?

Universal healthcare is everyone being covered. There are many ways to achieve this. Single payer is one option, where the government provides coverage and pays providers for their service rather than a slew of different insurance companies. Thus they are the lone "single" payer for medical services. Instead of people buying insurance they pay increased taxes. Typically you also get rid of copays and deductibles under this system as well.

if one of the problems with ACA is that young, healthy adults aren't participating, I don't know why they think Trumpcare will induce young people to jump into the health insurance market. what's in it for them except maybe saving a couple dollars. as has been pointed out repeatedly, you MUST have the young healthy folks to pay for the less healthy. I don't see saving a couple bucks as a viable argument as to why the young would buy this insurance.

if most people get insurance coverage through their job, why would anyone who's younger, healthier leave their work insurance and buy into Trumpcare? or buy it as a supplemental plan.

I got the shock of my life this morning when 45 transition member Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) stood up for Meals on Wheels and said he wouldn't vote for any bill that cut even one single dollar from it. why? because he has a personal connection with the program and how it helped his mother. so, personal experience trumps political ideology.

He's rallying in favor of the GOP health plan, which is a long way from the policy he espoused in the campaign.

Which gets to the heart of the matter. He never really had any well defined positions. He had some nebulous ideas of something "terrific" but no idea on how to get there. The only way to achieve the things that he campaigned on, are to double down on the parts of Obamacare that the GOP base can't stand. So he abandons those principles and tries to sell a bill of rotten goods to his supporters hoping that their attachment to him is greater than their health care commands.

Health care was one of his best defined positions. He campaigned in favor of universal coverage all through the campaign.

I never heard him say anything about "universal coverage" or anything equivalent to that in his speeches. It was "repeal and replace", but the replace wasn't spelled out, other than that it would be better and I think he also said "you can choose/keep your own doctor" which is one thing the Republicans always criticized Obama for promising but not delivering.

He's rallying in favor of the GOP health plan, which is a long way from the policy he espoused in the campaign.

Which gets to the heart of the matter. He never really had any well defined positions. He had some nebulous ideas of something "terrific" but no idea on how to get there. The only way to achieve the things that he campaigned on, are to double down on the parts of Obamacare that the GOP base can't stand. So he abandons those principles and tries to sell a bill of rotten goods to his supporters hoping that their attachment to him is greater than their health care commands.

Health care was one of his best defined positions. He campaigned in favor of universal coverage all through the campaign.

I never heard him say anything about "universal coverage" or anything equivalent to that in his speeches. It was "repeal and replace", but the replace wasn't spelled out, other than that it would be better and I think he also said "you can choose/keep your own doctor" which is one thing the Republicans always criticized Obama for promising but not delivering.

Didn't you read his campaign book, The America We Deserve?

He said in it; "We must have universal healthcare...I'm a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one."

_________________Why can't we sit in the park like other boys and girls?
Why do we have to walk in the subway tunnel?

He's rallying in favor of the GOP health plan, which is a long way from the policy he espoused in the campaign.

Which gets to the heart of the matter. He never really had any well defined positions. He had some nebulous ideas of something "terrific" but no idea on how to get there. The only way to achieve the things that he campaigned on, are to double down on the parts of Obamacare that the GOP base can't stand. So he abandons those principles and tries to sell a bill of rotten goods to his supporters hoping that their attachment to him is greater than their health care commands.

Health care was one of his best defined positions. He campaigned in favor of universal coverage all through the campaign.

I never heard him say anything about "universal coverage" or anything equivalent to that in his speeches. It was "repeal and replace", but the replace wasn't spelled out, other than that it would be better and I think he also said "you can choose/keep your own doctor" which is one thing the Republicans always criticized Obama for promising but not delivering.

Didn't you read his campaign book, The America We Deserve?

He said in it; "We must have universal healthcare...I'm a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one."

He did campaign for the Reform Party nomination in 2000. He probably also was pro-choice back then too. I was thinking that he was only espousing standard Republican talking points policies in order to get through the primaries and maintain their full support in the general election (which I thought was a mistake as it would turn off non-Republicans). But he is certainly governing like a Republican - trying to cut everywhere but increasing the massive defense budget.

In 2009 he actually was one of a group of business people who signed a letter to Obama and Congress and displayed in a New York Times ad requesting that Climate Change be addressed by renewable energy. And 8 years later he nominates a EPA chief who doesn't believe in Climate Change while also saying that he doesn't as well. Although he did try to vigorously disavow ever having said that Climate Change was a hoax created by the Chinese when Clinton brought it up in a debate. I guess it was the "hoax" part that he didn't want to acknowledge.

He's rallying in favor of the GOP health plan, which is a long way from the policy he espoused in the campaign.

Which gets to the heart of the matter. He never really had any well defined positions. He had some nebulous ideas of something "terrific" but no idea on how to get there. The only way to achieve the things that he campaigned on, are to double down on the parts of Obamacare that the GOP base can't stand. So he abandons those principles and tries to sell a bill of rotten goods to his supporters hoping that their attachment to him is greater than their health care commands.

Health care was one of his best defined positions. He campaigned in favor of universal coverage all through the campaign.

I never heard him say anything about "universal coverage" or anything equivalent to that in his speeches. It was "repeal and replace", but the replace wasn't spelled out, other than that it would be better and I think he also said "you can choose/keep your own doctor" which is one thing the Republicans always criticized Obama for promising but not delivering.

As pilight noted he did use the term "universal coverage" in his campaign book. But more than that he also campaign on having a plan that would be "terrific" that we would all "love" that would be so much better than the "disaster" Obamacare. He said that his plan would insure more people at lower costs and offer more choices. He just never explained how he was going to hit all those benchmarks.

As pilight noted he did use the term "universal coverage" in his campaign book. But more than that he also campaign on having a plan that would be "terrific" that we would all "love" that would be so much better than the "disaster" Obamacare. He said that his plan would insure more people at lower costs and offer more choices. He just never explained how he was going to hit all those benchmarks.

The "campaign book" that pilight cited to me was from 2000, so the campaign would have been for the nomination of the Reform Party that year. But this article from last year cites a September 2015 60 Minutes interview:

Quote:

TRUMP: “Everybody's got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say, 'No, no, the lower 25 percent that can't afford private. But—'”

PELLEY: “Universal health care.”

TRUMP: “I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now.”

PELLEY: “The uninsured person is going to be taken care of. How? How?”

TRUMP: “They're going to be taken care of. I would make a deal with existing hospitals to take care of people. And, you know what, if this is probably—”

PELLEY: “Make a deal? Who pays for it?”

TRUMP: —the government's gonna pay for it. But we're going to save so much money on the other side. But for the most it's going to be a private plan and people are going to be able to go out and negotiate great plans with lots of different competition with lots of competitors with great companies and they can have their doctors, they can have plans, they can have everything."

And in a debate he said:

Quote:

And then we have to take care of the people that can’t take care of themselves. And I will do that through a different system.”

So he did make statements about covering everybody this campaign cycle, but I wouldn't say he "campaigned on it". I would say it was open to interpretation as to whether he talked about "covering everybody" a few times in order to get votes from some people, or if he didn't talk about "covering everybody" the rest of the time in order to not lose votes from some people. Except that, on January 15th of this year he again talked about "covering everybody".

It is hard to see how he could implement coverage for more people than the ACA, let alone everybody, after one of his main criticisms of it was always that the premiums had jumped up too high. He could go and ask Europe how they do it, or talk to Bernie Sanders about his plan, but a lot of Republicans would have a fit about either. So they would be non-starters unless a lot those rust belt and southern Republicans let their representatives know that's what they want. And even then, at this point I don't know if many Democrats would vote for something Trump puts out, even if it covered everybody. Besides it coming from Trump, they weren't calling for Clinton to advocate a plan that covered everybody.